Two verses are unrelated when they reside in passages that have different subjects in view.
So if Paul describes "murder" in these two passages, no one is allowed to take advantage of that, and pick his brain on his definition of "murder"? LOL
Why?
Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, helps the reader follow his arguments, introducing them with rhetorical questions.
I don't think that's his intention--I think he's actually preempting Rome's Jewish believers' objections. He knew Gentiles didn't have the Scriptures so they would not of necessity have been able to follow along, most of it (from about Romans 2 through 11:12, but he addresses Gentiles finally in Romans 11:13) was written for the Jewish believers.
Romans 3:20
This verse resides in a discussion of the advantages of living under the law. He opens this discussion with a question, "What advantage has the Jew?" Paul will argue that while there are advantages to being a Jew, living under the law, he and his objectors disagree that living as a Jew gives them the advantage with regard to God's favor, specifically justification. The main advantage of being a Jew, under the law, is the fact that his people have access to the oracles. And do these oracles contain proclamations declaring the righteousness of the Jewish people? No, in fact, just the opposite. In other words, living under the law did not give the Jews an advantage with respect to righteousness. These people proved themselves to be sinners just like the rest of us. These oracles condemn all people, including the Jewish people of sin. Thus Paul has proven his thesis statement that every human being falls short of God's glory and if human beings hope to be saved from that condition, there needs to be another way. Chapter four opens with a discussion of the "new way."
1. No, actually, a) there were no chapters when he wrote it, and b) the "alternative" is already being discussed in Romans 3:21--"righteousness of God".
2. The notion "Different portions of Paul's writings have no corresponding ideas in them--none of his content can be compared or considered analogous to any other part in his writings" should be rejected as absurd.
His letter is a cohesive whole, and uses the same terms and definitions throughout.
Romans 7:7
This verse resides in a discussion concerning the reliability of the law itself. In fact, this verse is the opening question, "Is the law itself sin?" He will consider the fact that the Law, in a sense, lead to his death. (condemned him to die) and the question is whether this would be considered manslaughter. (an unintentional death.) Is the law itself responsible for evil? Paul will argue that the law was not the perpetrator of his death; sin was. Paul was already dead when the law came along to show him his condition. The law is not evil, the law is good because it helps us see ourselves for who we really are.
Correction : "Or do you not know..." Romans 7:1 is a rejoinder to "you are not under Law but under Grace" Romans 6:14, and it goes on to explain why exactly they are "not under Law", and how exactly they had been "mastered by sin" when they were "in the flesh" Romans 7:5 (Christians like his audience aren't "in the flesh" but "in the Spirit" Romans 8:9) and "under Law".
Suppose I claim the ability to lift 100 pounds. The claim remains theoretical until someone asks me to prove it. Only when I make the attempt is the issue resolved either way. The challenge is good, because the act of lifting the weight will demonstrate whether my claim is true or not.
Suppose I claim to be a righteous man and good man. The claim remains theoretical until a law asks me to prove it. The Jewish law, for instance, defines righteousness in terms of practices and intent, and it commands the Jew to keep those practices and have the right inwardness. The Law is good because until anyone actually lives according to a righteous code such as the Jewish law, his claim to be righteous man is theoretical.
You're actually making my point for me : in both cases, the definitions are the same (the challenge to pick the weight up, and the act of lifting, which you want to place these two portions under, utilize the same definitions--same goalposts, nothing moves).
Jesus told the crowd that their righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees. What did he mean? I said earlier that the Law not only defines righteousness in terms of practice, it also defines righteousness in terms of having the proper inwardness. And this was the missing piece the Pharisees ignored. Jesus was critical of the Pharisees because although orthopraxy was not a problem for them, orthodoxy was.
In short, they were doing all the right things but for the wrong reason. They lived the correct praxis, but without contrition, humility, honesty, or faith.
1. Please reread Matthew 15, starting at verse 1, because you're totally wrong in saying Jesus thought they had no problem with their practice.
2. None of this is relevant to your point--none of it proves a term's definition he gives can't be helpful for understanding that term when used in another area of literally the same letter. LOL I mean, that's the reason you would give a term's definition in the first place--so that people could use it to help find internal consistencies in your presentation and make sense of your statements. LOL
In his argument which begins in 7:7, Paul makes the point that as long as he based his justification on his praxis, he was "alive" with respect to justification; but when he considered coveting, which is not praxis but inwardness
1. YOU are importing "legal definitions" he never used--for a Jew, "do not covet" was included in "praxis", because the Law was to govern the entire being spirit soul and body (eg, "take heed to your spirit").
2. Again, you still haven't proven Paul "moved the goalposts". Same definitions.
he found that he was "dead" with respect to justification. Coveting is not praxis. That is, coveting takes place in the mind and the heart, not in public where all can see. Paul's warning and exhortation is to those who rely on orthopraxy as the means to God's favor. Paul warns them that the Law not only dictates practice (works) it also dictates inwardness.
(wow, these posts are long.)
No, "works" includes "internalities"--"Commandments" correspond to "works" (obviously, the "work" being "Commanded" must get done), and the greatest two are to love God and men, but these are internal realities, and to "do" them would be to "do the work which was Commanded". No "division" exists between internal and external "works".
Not sure how you were thinking any of this was supposed to prove to anyone I shouldn't find Paul's terms and definitions consistent, because it falls very short of doing that.
I stand by my observation--"The term 'works of Law' cannot be said to refer only to 'Jew-specific commands--circumcision, dietary law, Sabbath, etc'; rather, 'works of Law' must refer to the 'works' corresponding to the Commands which 'the Law' issues (eg, 'do not covet'), or else, there would be no parity between the 'sins' of Gentiles and 'transgressions' of Jews (the Gentiles did not 'sin in the likeness of Adam's sin'--but 'the law came in to increase the transgression', so, through Law, the unknowing sin of the Gentile becomes the knowing sin, trangression ('like Adam'), of the Jew)--and we see that Paul defines 'coveting' as precisely one of the sins which the Commands of the Law, and their corresponding works, bring knowledge of (rendering it a transgression)."
